<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (9) TMI 21 - Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=883</link>
    <description>Shortages reflected only in the assessee&#039;s SAP inventory could not sustain duty demand, penalty, or interest where the Department did not conduct physical stock verification and did not prove any discrepancy in the statutory RG-1 records. The record showed separate maintenance of production accounts, and the apparent shortages were explained by inventory system errors and internal adjustment entries. In the absence of proof of clandestine removal or wrong entries in the statutory records, the basis for invoking the demand and allied penal provisions failed, and the demand, penalty, and interest were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 21 - Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=883</link>
      <description>Shortages reflected only in the assessee&#039;s SAP inventory could not sustain duty demand, penalty, or interest where the Department did not conduct physical stock verification and did not prove any discrepancy in the statutory RG-1 records. The record showed separate maintenance of production accounts, and the apparent shortages were explained by inventory system errors and internal adjustment entries. In the absence of proof of clandestine removal or wrong entries in the statutory records, the basis for invoking the demand and allied penal provisions failed, and the demand, penalty, and interest were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>